The US and Russia have Different Understandings of “Strategic Security”

The two sides will now devote six to eight months to clarifying each other’s positions.

The U.S. once again confirmed its refusal to provide legal guarantees that the European Missile Defense System, created in partnership with its NATO allies, is not directed against Moscow. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher announced this yesterday in Washington during a meeting with journalists covering military topics.

I don’t know which of the invited journalists pulled her tongue (most likely, Tauscher’s speech was basically “homework”), but she had to dispel the last illusions of the Russian negotiators, who, possibly still hope for a compromise with the Americans on the issue of missile defense. But the Americans are offering us a completely different “compromise” — to accept the fact that missile defense will appear on our borders. To “cooperate” with them in this process is very reminiscent of the capitulation of Russia. It is true, the magnanimous Americans are offering us capitulation “honorably” — in the form of “cooperation.”

“We will never do a legally binding agreement because I can’t do one”, explained Ellen Tauscher. “Even if I wanted to I’m not sure I would…’legally binding’ doesn’t mean what it did before. What they are looking for really is a sense that future administrations are going to live by [Obama’s commitments] and you can’t really do that,” explained the undersecretary.

“The only way they (i.e. the representatives of Russia) are going to be assured … the system does not undercut their strategic deterrent is to sit with us in the tent in NATO and see what we are doing. They will only be their own eyes and ears,” she said. “… [W]e are hoping that these strategic stability talks over the next eight months will start to loosen these old ties that have been binding everybody in the old way of thinking.”

As we see, in refusing Moscow a guarantee, Washington nevertheless expects all the same to “compromise.” And not simply expects, but almost firmly believes: “We will get a missile defense agreement with Russia.” And with what fervor penetrates this faith of the Americans in a “compromise!” “I believe that missile defense is the metaphor for the opportunity of getting things right [in the U.S.-Russia relationship]. It’s been an irritant in our relationship for 30 years. It’s also the place where great European powers, including Russia, can work together cooperatively,” Tauscher said. For sure, after such words our negotiators can really loosen their neckties.

Well, the additional strength of the faith of the Americans in a future “compromise” with the Russian leadership, it turns out, provides a quick conclusion to the Russian election cycle. It is not just by chance that Tauscher expressed confidence that the tough talk of Russian officials on missile defense was just part of the election campaign, and after the presidential elections in Russia, the negotiations on missile defense will go better.

Yesterday’s briefing for journalists by Tauscher was not limited to only missile defense questions. The undersecretary outlined the general framework of negotiations with Russia on a wide spectrum of issues. According to her words, reported by RIA Novosti in December of last year, the sides agreed to meet regularly — at least monthly — for consultation on 13 major topics, including issues on conventional forces in Europe, combating piracy, cyber security, and missile defense. “The next six to eight months we decided to spend on strategic stability,” said Tauscher. So far, she explained, the sides anticipate working towards clarification so that Russia and the U.S. both understand the term “strategic stability” and what measures they consider necessary to ensure it.

As we see, “mutual understanding” and “partnership” between Russia and the U.S. in the area of strategic security has now reached a stage when the sides still have to ascertain how each one understands the term “strategic security.” If you recall, during the Cold War years, there were no fundamental differences in understanding “strategic security” between the USSR and the U.S. (mutual security based on the nuclear deterrent capability of each side), so significant “progress” by the parties since then must be noted. The much-hyped “reset” seems to have helped.

The only somewhat reassuring statement for Russia heard from Tauscher’s mouth was, perhaps, her recognition that negotiations between the U.S. and Russia concerning the reduction of strategic and tactical weapons are being postponed until a more suitable time. Especially reassuring are the words about tactical weapons. Indeed the U.S. (and Europeans too) have long aspired to include, as soon as possible, issues of reduction of existing tactical nuclear weapons in the negotiation process. For Russia, with a clear superiority over NATO in conventional weapons, such a reduction in the tactical nuclear arsenal means practically a full disarmament before the combined forces of the alliance. Therefore, if Tauscher is upset over the postponement of negotiations on the reduction of tactical nuclear weapons, we can consider this quite joyful news.